> We're talking about one language which is a superset of many of the
> common languages, so it can be used as an interlingua. You translate
> your ruleset into it, and if you can translate it back out into
> another vendor's language (because it has enough features), your rules
> will mean the same thing. I'm surprised the mission statement
> isn't clear on this.
to me it is Sandro
at least what I did was for a number of test cases
1/ write rules and integrity constraints in first order notation N3
2/ encode that in an XML syntax like explained in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Aug/0080.html
3/ translate that into
o swi-prolog and bprolog
o pttp, prover9 and eprover
o cwm and euler after rountrip back to N3
and got the derivations that I expected to get
or the system was not capable to run the test case
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/